I really don't think that's at all relevant and it seems bizarre to link it in to this at all.
That said, obviously we don't want this work to go unregulated, or unchecked. The problem is that the risk assessment seems to be very difficult if not impossible for outsiders to the field, myself included, to estimate to any degree of certainty. We don't want a situation, either, where (potentially) important work is hampered or blocked because of unjustified paranoia. I don't know if that's really the case here -- as I've said I'm not really sure that my assessment of the risk is accurate -- but whoever the regulator/ risk assessor is, surely you would agree that it ought to be someone who understands the work that's going on in some considerable detail? When non-experts start to interfere in matters they don't fully understand, or make use of ideas that they haven't actually appreciated properly, the results can be almost as bad as people running off and doing unregulated experiments.
I suppose what I'm trying to say, not all that effectively perhaps, is that I'm glad that no-one here is in charge of the decision as to whether this research takes place or not. Not sure that anyone has really offered a convincing reason why it should, or should not, continue. I'm speaking about, basically, trust that these people know what they are doing -- and while that's usually a safe bet, it's not 100% guaranteed to be. And I don't think I'll ever be able to do much better than that, really. Oh, well.
I look forward to seeing where this goes, if anywhere. At least I think I do.